2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.05.040
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of adsorbent dose, its particle size and initial arsenic concentration on the removal of arsenic, iron and manganese from simulated ground water by Fe3+ impregnated activated carbon

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

7
100
0
2

Year Published

2009
2009
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 191 publications
(109 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
7
100
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…A number of adsorbent materials have been studied for their ability to remove heavy metals and they have been sourced from natural materials and biological wastes of industrial processes (Igbinosa and Okoh, 2009). These materials including: activated carbon (Uzun and Guzel, 2000;Goel et al, 2005;Issabayeva et al, 2007;Mondal et al, 2008), chitosan and carrageenan (Bong et al, 2004), lignite (Allen et al, 1997), kaolinite and ballclay (Chantawong et al, 2003), diatomite (Ulmanu et al, 2003), coconut fiber (Igwe et al 2007) and limestone (Aziz et al, 2004). However, adsorption by activated carbon had been reported as a technically and economically viable technology for heavy metal removal (Huang and Morehart, 1991;Bong et al, 2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A number of adsorbent materials have been studied for their ability to remove heavy metals and they have been sourced from natural materials and biological wastes of industrial processes (Igbinosa and Okoh, 2009). These materials including: activated carbon (Uzun and Guzel, 2000;Goel et al, 2005;Issabayeva et al, 2007;Mondal et al, 2008), chitosan and carrageenan (Bong et al, 2004), lignite (Allen et al, 1997), kaolinite and ballclay (Chantawong et al, 2003), diatomite (Ulmanu et al, 2003), coconut fiber (Igwe et al 2007) and limestone (Aziz et al, 2004). However, adsorption by activated carbon had been reported as a technically and economically viable technology for heavy metal removal (Huang and Morehart, 1991;Bong et al, 2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It can be understood from Fig. 3b that removal efficiency, increased with increasing biosorbent dose for both phenol and cyanide, but after a definite dosage, the removal efficiency was not increased considerably (Mondal et al 2008). Thus, the optimum amounts of CSAC dose for additional biosorption experiments were designated as 30 g/L for both phenol and cyanide.…”
Section: Effect Of Biosorbent Dosementioning
confidence: 91%
“…The coconut shell activated carbon was washed with Millipore water to eliminate residual chemicals and then the sample was dried at 110°C temperature for 24 h. The surface modification of CSAC was achieved by impregnation with ferric chloride (Fecl 3 ). The impregnation was carried out at 70°C in an oven until the complete evaporation of water was detected, and then the CSAC was dried at 110°C for 24 h (Mondal et al 2008). The dried sample was washed with Millipore water until the washing liquid was free from iron, and then dried to constant weight and used as impregnated activated carbon for further studies.…”
Section: Preparation Of Biosorbentmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For the last couple of decades, activated carbons as an adsorbent has been widely used for arsenic removal from water (Kalderis et al 2008;Mohan and Pittman 2007;Mondal et al 2008) as it possesses significant surface area with micro/mesopore structure along with extensive adsorption capacity. Commercial activated carbons are expensive and it is the main drawback of using this adsorbent in all the application sectors (Roy et al 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%